I hope, but do not expect, that good western liberals will start to realize the disparity between their supposedly universal moral principles and their inability to see criticism of Islam as something other than racist.

It's funny how butthurt liberals get when it comes to right-wing Christianity in America and how the script gets so ridiculously flipped when it comes to right-wing militant Islam in other countries.

Agreed with WSA that there's such a disproportionate amount of "moderate" Muslims opposing free speech that we can't simply say this issue is limited to militant Islam.

And I disagree with those who assign blame for these kinds of terrorist attacks exclusively on U.S. foreign policy, and are incapable of seeing this through another lens than U.S. imperialism. Yesterday on Twitter I saw someone say essentially that the French had it coming because they were making it legally difficult for people to wear the hijab (or something) so this is blowback for making French Muslims feel like their way of life is under siege. Listen, I hate Western arrogance as much as the next guy, but we've got to make room for nuance here. Not only must it be okay for liberals to critically examine Islamic doctrine/opinions of the average Muslim - they must be leading the charge in this effort, as the left has traditionally done.

At 1/8/2015 10:00:02 AM, jat93 wrote:I hope, but do not expect, that good western liberals will start to realize the disparity between their supposedly universal moral principles and their inability to see criticism of Islam as something other than racist.

It's funny how butthurt liberals get when it comes to right-wing Christianity in America and how the script gets so ridiculously flipped when it comes to right-wing militant Islam in other countries.

Agreed with WSA that there's such a disproportionate amount of "moderate" Muslims opposing free speech that we can't simply say this issue is limited to militant Islam.

And I disagree with those who assign blame for these kinds of terrorist attacks exclusively on U.S. foreign policy, and are incapable of seeing this through another lens than U.S. imperialism. Yesterday on Twitter I saw someone say essentially that the French had it coming because they were making it legally difficult for people to wear the hijab (or something) so this is blowback for making French Muslims feel like their way of life is under siege. Listen, I hate Western arrogance as much as the next guy, but we've got to make room for nuance here. Not only must it be okay for liberals to critically examine Islamic doctrine/opinions of the average Muslim - they must be leading the charge in this effort, as the left has traditionally done.

Everyone has the right to criticise and in turn that means they have a right to be criticized. The annoying thing that I have noticed is that there is no shortage of Muslim criticism of the West, Christianity and liberal values yet when we turn around and decide to criticise them back we're violently attacked. Double standards...

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

Ironic, the president should be free to say that you should not be free to talk.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

Ironic, the president should be free to say that you should not be free to talk.

I can't in good faith say he can't be allowed to say that. But I do disagree with what he said on the matter.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

The underlined is simply not occurring. He's casting judgement on what people expressed, but he by no means ever questioned people's freedom to express themselves.

He's saying "Don't be a fool", not "I'm not going to allow you to be a fool". There's a big difference there.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

"We are aware that a French magazine [Hedbo] published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we [Carney and Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this...we...question the judgment behind the decision to publish it." - Jay Carney, 2012 when the cartoons first began to be published.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

"We are aware that a French magazine [Hedbo] published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we [Carney and Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this...we...question the judgment behind the decision to publish it." - Jay Carney, 2012 when the cartoons first began to be published.

"In other words, we don"t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it," Carney continued.

That's the exact point I've been making here.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

"We are aware that a French magazine [Hedbo] published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we [Carney and Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this...we...question the judgment behind the decision to publish it." - Jay Carney, 2012 when the cartoons first began to be published.

"In other words, we don"t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it," Carney continued.

That's the exact point I've been making here.

No, obviously I know that. What I'm saying is that questioning such judgement from a postition of such authority can dissuade people from freely expressing themselves. It can be taken as a damper on expression.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

"We are aware that a French magazine [Hedbo] published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we [Carney and Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this...we...question the judgment behind the decision to publish it." - Jay Carney, 2012 when the cartoons first began to be published.

"In other words, we don"t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it," Carney continued.

That's the exact point I've been making here.

No, obviously I know that. What I'm saying is that questioning such judgement from a postition of such authority can dissuade people from freely expressing themselves. It can be taken as a damper on expression.

I'm fairly certain the problem is not that Obama is saying what he said, but that the people who are expressing themselves are getting killed, and we are unable to stop such crimes from occurring.

I mean, that article attempts to blame Obama for not providing Sony extra security protection (at taxpayer expense) for showing a particular movie. That article is attempting to blame Obama for not showing preferential treatment to a business. That article is advocating that the government should go out of its way to pick and choose the winners in our economy...it is advocating fascism in lieu of free market capitalism.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 1/7/2015 10:05:55 PM, Clovis wrote:Do you think this is going to scare people into curbing their freedom of expression?

I sincerely doubt it. Maybe they will make such hateful forms of violent expression carry a more severe penalty...but I don't think that would curb freedom of expression at all.

I'm not talking about a major receding of freedom of expression but rather a more gradual one. The president of the US already questioned the newspapers "judgement" on whether to run such cartoons. That is infringing on freedom of the press and expression right there by basically saying their exercising of those rights was in poor judgement.

The POTUS is entitled to express his own opinion as a citizen. Or would you rather the POTUS be restricted in what he is able to say?

Obama does this plenty on race-related issues.

I don't think he should be restricted. I do think what he said could be interpreted as damaging to freedom of expression in this case however.

How so? Is he passing a mandate? An executive order? Curbing anyone's freedom to express themselves?

I mean, he's just saying that people should exercise prudence in their decision-making. That's hardly curbing freedom of expression.

It is giving credibility to the cause of these extremists in that by casting judgement upon people's freedom of expression he is implicitly saying that it would be wise to curb it in the face of recent events which is exactly what the extremists want: a curbing of such political expression in regards to their religion.

I'm going to also ask at this point that you substantiate the underlined. This article mentions nothing of the sort and in fact affirms the POTUS's commitment to freedom of speech. http://www.businessinsider.com...

I can easily imagine right-wing conservatives attempting to falsely paint Obama as a Muslim to instill more Islamophobia stateside, so I would now politely ask again that you prove your statement.

"We are aware that a French magazine [Hedbo] published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we [Carney and Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this...we...question the judgment behind the decision to publish it." - Jay Carney, 2012 when the cartoons first began to be published.

"In other words, we don"t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it," Carney continued.

That's the exact point I've been making here.

No, obviously I know that. What I'm saying is that questioning such judgement from a postition of such authority can dissuade people from freely expressing themselves. It can be taken as a damper on expression.

I'm fairly certain the problem is not that Obama is saying what he said, but that the people who are expressing themselves are getting killed, and we are unable to stop such crimes from occurring.

I mean, that article attempts to blame Obama for not providing Sony extra security protection (at taxpayer expense) for showing a particular movie. That article is attempting to blame Obama for not showing preferential treatment to a business. That article is advocating that the government should go out of its way to pick and choose the winners in our economy...it is advocating fascism in lieu of free market capitalism.

I'm not discussing any of those other points in the article.

And I agree that the problem is that people expressing themselves are dying.The original discussion, which I think went well, was whether or not these deaths will lead to a fear among people to express themselves. All I'm saying is that quotes like those will not help in disipating this fear in people after such an event.

Words are wind.

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.

All I'm saying is that quotes like those will not help in disipating this fear in people after such an event.

Are you free to be rash? Yes, and no one is going to stop you. However, people (like the POTUS in this case) will go out of their way to advise you not to be rash.

I think everyone is aware as to what would dissipate the fear - better security. Words of wisdom are not relevant to such, sure, but are they useful in other ways? I would hope so.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

The loss of life is always tragic, and the terrorists are barbarians...

But let's be honest, those bigoted cartoonists got exactly what they were asking for, and I am not surprised in the slightest. They should have stuck to ridiculing peaceful religions like Christianity if they didn't want fanatical Muslims to shoot them.

The media is making them out to be saintly martyrs who stood for freedom of the press, but really they were hateful bigots who stood for racism and militant atheism. I am not glad they are dead, but I am glad their hateful, slanderous blasphemy has come to an end. May god have mercy on their souls.